Just because she says “I do,” it doesn’t preclude her from saying “no” ever again.
Free Northerner is a “Dark Enlightenment” blogger who describes himself as “a Christian and a reactionary monarchist from British North America” who,
after a period of red pill exploration … decided to embrace Christian masculinity. I am working to improve myself for God’s glory. My plan is to find a wife and raise a large family with traditional values.
If any woman ever decides to marry him – and I sincerely hope no one ever does — she should be aware that her Darkly Enlightened husband does not believe there is such a thing as marital rape.
In a recent post, Free Northerner set forth the essentially the same argument as his fellow reactionary Vox Day: that the marriage contract provides “sexual consent … for life,” and that those who argue for the existence of marital rape are thereby undermining the legitimacy of marriage itself. And then he adds some tweaks that make his terrible argument even more terrible than that of Mr. Day. But we’ll get to those in a moment.
I don’t think the Militant Baker cares if her tattoos are offputting to assholes.
Misogynists hate, hate, hate it when women get tattoos. They just can’t all agree on why. The standard misogynist line on tattoos for women is that they are all, essentially, “tramp stamps” – a way of broadcasting that the woman displaying them is a slut, a skank, a whore. You know the drill.
But the “alternative right” racist/sexist/homophobe who goes by the handle agnostic has a rather different take. In a post on his blog Face to Face, he argues that women with tattoos are actually trying to broadcast their Puritan prudery.
Tattoos, you see, are just plain ugly, and help to accessorize a dreary look designed to repel men.
Notice how those girls dress in drab, dark monochrome colors, wear no girly jewelry, and sport flat hair rather than Big Hair. Their sassy, sarcastic, even nasty attitude echos their off-putting look.
Fundamentally, they are part of the larger trend toward drab dressing, and its signal of reluctance to get loose. Their personalities are more anti-social, so they express the neo-Pilgrim style in a more antagonistic fashion than the less abrasive girls in their generation, but they’re both variations on the same theme.
The tattoo-bearers are likely to be man-haters as well.
They are also part of the larger trend among women toward fear of or hatred toward men. …
In such a climate, women will alter their appearance and demeanor in order to deflate rather than excite the male libido. They act like prey trying to give warning signals to potential predators. The tattoo chicks are only the extreme version of this widespread trend. Girls sure don’t look or act as cute and flirty as they used to in the boy-crazy Eighties, when they thought of guys not as predators but as conspecifics who they wanted to court with engaging mating displays.
“Conspecifics” simply means “members of the same species.” Agnostic loves to drop that sciency lingo in order to make his prejudices seem smart.
Anyway, he continues by arguing that tattoos are especially offensive to pickup artistes and other “assertive” dudes.
Off-putting style also serves to filter out the more assertive and independent males, who would rather spend time on a girl who looks cute, rather than settle for one who’s all marked up or not willing to show anything at all. … By inking themselves up, girls ensure that only the guys who are willing to get walked over and slapped in the face will approach them. Why go through the long hassle of having your new boyfriend fixed when you can advertise that only the neutered need apply in the first place?
Ah, but this last bit is perhaps more revealing than agnostic means it to be. Tattoos are an affront to misogynists because they’re seen as too assertive, too masculine – a challenge to traditional femininity, and to men who prefer traditionally feminine women.
Tattoos on women make misogynistic men angry because on some fundamental level these men don’t think women have the right to decorate their bodies in a way that displeases men –or at least their kind of men. It’s the same kind of creepy, possessive anger that many misogynistic men show towards women who cut their hair short. It’s as if these men on some level believe women’s bodies belong to them, and not to the women themselves.
Men being oppressed by domestic violence treatment
A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam is so full of it on virtually every subject he opines about – from domestic violence to women’s spendinghabits – that much of what he writes might be best classified as fiction. He would no doubt disagree, but then again he’s not big on self-awareness.
But in addition to writing much inadvertent or unadmitted fiction, Elam has also tried his hand at fiction of the more traditional sort. I ran across one of his short stories the other day, and I’d like to share it with you, because it is quite possibly the most revealing piece I’ve writing I’ve ever seen from him.
As fiction, it is, of course, terrible, written in a clunky, melodramatic style one can only describe, with a shudder, as highly Paul Elam-esque. Elam doesn’t exactly have the skills or the subtlety to create an even vaguely believable fictional world. The story is essentially a polemic in story form – an extended argument justifying domestic violence against women.
So this little screenshot is making the rounds on the internet. It’s from 4chan, so who knows if the guy posting it is sincere. But I’ve seen similar, albeit less histrionic, complaints from other would-be pickup artistes in the past.
Guess what, dude. Some of those women wearing earbuds aren’t even listening to music. They just wear them to avoid creepy dudes like you.
Apparently worried that the world might forget what a thoroughly reprehensible human being he is, fantasy author and freelance bigot Vox Day (Theodore Beale) has decided to bring up the issue of marital rape again – in order to assert, as he has many times in the past, that marital rape doesn’t actually exist.
In a post yesterday on his blog Vox Populi, Beale notes with obvious pleasure that an Indian judge recently ruled that marital sex, “even if forcible, is not rape,” thus upholding a section of the Indian Penal Code that refuses to acknowledge marital rape as rape.
Beale crows:
Some of my dimmer critics have attempted to make a meal out of my factual statement: a man cannot rape his wife. But that is not only a fact, it is the explicit law in the greater part of the world, just as it is part of the English Common Law. …
The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West presently call some forms of sex between a husband and wife “rape” does not transform marital sex into rape any more than a law that declared all vaginal intercourse to be rape would make it so.
Unfortunately for Beale, simply declaring that the world is on his side on this one does not make it so. It not simply a handful of “ lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West” that see marital rape for what it is. The United Nations has recognized marital rape as a human rights violation for more than two decades. And the world is coming around to this point of view.
While (as of 2011) only 52 countries had laws specifically criminalizing marital rape, many others don’t have a “marital rape” exemption to their rape laws, meaning that in more than 100 countries marital rape can be prosecuted. And that number will inevitably grow.
Here’s a map from Wikipedia showing the countries (in red) in which marital rape is illegal. The countries in black allow marital rape. In the other countries, it’s a bit more complicated. (See here for the details.)
From Wikipedia.
But for now, at least, Beale is happy for another chance to explain the toxic “logic” behind his assertion that “marital rape” is impossible.
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of “marital rape” for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed.
Now, by Beale’s logic, a husband is entitled to force his wife to have sex over her screaming objections. Since “consent is ongoing,” in Beale’s version of marriage, a woman could say no or even fight back against her husband’s advances, but none of this would count as non-consent because once a woman is married there is no such thing.
But of course Beale doesn’t want to have to defend what is obviously – at least to anyone with any humanity – violent rape. So he tries instead to restrict the debate to the seemingly innocuous practice of “wake-up sex.” After all, what guy doesn’t want to be woken up with a blow job?
But even this example isn’t as persuasive as he thinks it is. Some people like to be woken up in an “intimate manner,” at least some of the time; some don’t, and you don’t get to override their desire not to be sexually manhandled in their sleep just because you’re married to them. And while drunk sex is not necessarily rape, marriage doesn’t give you the right to force sex on a partner who is intoxicated to the point of incapacity.
And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is “divorce”.
No, that word is “no.” There is no such thing as ongoing consent to sex. The fact that you are married to someone doesn’t give you the right to have sex with them whenever and wherever you want, whether they want to or not, any more than the fact that someone is a professional boxer gives you the right to punch them in the head any time you feel like it.
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
No, Mr. Beale, you having the right to do whatever you want to with your dick is not the basis of civilization itself. Civilization, in fact, is built in part on the repression of some of our darkest desires. Part of growing up is reconciling ourselves to the sad fact that we can’t just do whatever the hell we want to all the time; Freud described this as putting behind the “pleasure principle” of infancy and early childhood for the “reality principle” that governs the more mature mind.
Beale seems to be driven not only by a desire for instant sexual gratification, whenever and wherever he wants, but also by a certain degree of sexual insecurity. In a previous post on the subject, he wrote:
If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her! It would make no sense whatsoever to marry a woman who believes that being married to her grants her husband no more sexual privilege than the next unemployed musician who happens to catch her eye.
Beale seems to think that if married women are allowed to say no to their husbands, they’ll desert these poor beta schlubs en masse in favor of scruffy alphas with guitars. At the root of all his arguments against the idea of marital rape is an obvious terror of unrestricted female choice.
In a way Beale’s petulant, self-serving defenses of marital rape serve a positive function, in that they help to remind us how abhorrent the practice is and how nonsensical the “arguments” in favor of allowing it really are.
Every time he opens his mouth on the subject, he helps to strengthen the growing consensus against marital rape.
Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.
In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.
Let’s take another stroll through the strange wonderland of Men Going Their Own Way, that small and bitter tribe of men who boldly declare their independence from women, then spend the rest of their lives obsessively talking about them.
Today, let’s look at the thoughtful discussion that ensued when one such fellow known as TDG asked his Brothers in Going Their Own Way why, of all the women they have Gone Their Own Way from (but not really), they tend to prefer women who are “chaste.”
Men’s Rights Activists tend to be fairly blunt; when they express a noxious opinion – and oh so many of their opinions are noxious – they do it in the most obnoxious possible way. It isn’t enough for Paul Elam of A Voice for Men to blame victims of rape; he also has to call them “STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH[es]” wearing the equivalent of PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign[s] glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.”
Warren Farrell is different. He takes a softer approach. He would never call a woman a bitch or a whore or a cunt. When he speaks, he manages to sound gentle and caring. He talks about the importance of listening to others. He sometimes even manages to give the impression that he cares as much about women as he does about men.
And yet his ideas are as noxious as Elam’s. He is as much of a victim blamer as any slur-spouting MGTOWer complaining about “stuck-up cunts” on an internet message board.
It’s just that he does his victim blaming with such carefully evasive language that he’s able to hide the noxiousness of his ideas – and to avoid taking responsibility for them when he’s challenged on them.
Yesterday Warren Farrell – the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, the man who single-handedly came up with probably half of the terrible arguments that are endlessly rehashed daily in the manosphere – went to Reddit and proclaimed “ask me anything!”
And so we, and a lot of other people, did. And he even answered a couple of the questions I posted here yesterday – though as I sort of suspected he pointedly ignored the questions about his incest research. Still, there were so many astounding things said in that discussion, both by Farrell himself and by his various supporters, that it’s going to take a couple of posts to get to them all.
Let’s just start with the ass question, shall we? Because there was nothing quite so astounding in that whole sprawling thread, or at least the portion of it that I managed to read, as “Dr.” Farrell’s – he has a PhD in political science –answer to the ass question.
That’s right. Warren Farrell literally believes that heterosexual men are powerless in the face of SEXY FEMALE BUTTS. They are BUTT HYPNOTIZED by women’s shapely buttocks, virtual prisoners to the power of DAT ASS.
Not only that, but they are slaves as well, forced to earn more money than women so that they can “pay for women’s drinks, dinners and diamonds.” Who knew that the wage gap was caused by the ass crack?
We like big butts, and we cannot lie. But that way tyranny, I espy.
Only if men can free themselves from the TYRANNY OF THE BUTT they can “have more control over [their] lives, and therefor [sic] more real power.”
But who will write the new Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of Queen Ass?
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for horny dudes to get rid of the boners which those ladies have caused with their smokin hot dumpers and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the babies who have got back requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, and that is, ladies we can’t think straight if we’re looking at DAT ASS all the time.
Oh, but “Dr.” Farrell is worried about the ladies, too. I mean, he said so:
it’s in women’s interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men’s inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.
Yes, you’re beautiful on the inside to m….holy crap did you see the ass on HER!?
Now, this isn’t entirely new. As I’ve noted before, Farrell makes a version of this argument in his book, talking about secretaries manipulating their bosses with their “miniskirt power, cleavage power, and flirtation power,” [p. 21] describing “female beauty” as “the world’s most potent drug,” [p. 85], and arguing that “many men feel ‘under the influence’ the moment they see a beautiful woman.” [p. 320]
But these, er, arguments weren’t the central focus of his rambling treatise. Now, at the age of 70, by not only putting a naked ass on the cover of his book, but also by defending it in such ludicrously overblown terms, he’s decided to put this unsolicited update from his penis at the center of his argument about the alleged powerlessness of men.
Yep, the closest thing that the Men’s Rights movement has to an intellectual heavyweight seems to think that the most pressing issue facing men today is how sad and mad and confused they feel because they can’t immediately have sex with every hot piece of ass that walks by (and, presumably, the women attached to these asses).
It’s really hard to find a better symbol of the sexual entitlement – and sexual resentment – that lies at the heart of the Men’s Rights movement than this.
Oh, and by the way, my new book is still available for purchase. So far I have sold no copies. Which might have something to do with the $1000 price tag, and also the fact that I haven’t actually written it. But you’ve got to admit the cover is pretty good.
In case you needed a clearer explanation of the power of women’s bodacious hineys, one Redditor by the name of Doldenberg has scienced things up for us and provided us all this useful graph. First, his brief explanation:
Being a brave Alpha from TRP, I have found the solution to the evident misandrist oppression of men by cute butt owners meaning owners of cute butts, not cute owners of butts, or butt owners of cute, or…, that is, ranking butts on an objective BMV (butt market value) scale. I’ve made the data up in my head, but it seems plausible. According to this data, the butt loses BMV when having sat on to many objects, while it’s cuteness only works as a limiting factor. I have made a handy graph[1] with supporting data and sources to explain my theory.
If you missed my talk at Northwestern on the Friend Zone, and most of you did, I go over a lot of what I said in it in my interview with Amanda Marcotte here. My segment of the podcast starts about 8 minutes in. (The rest of the podcast is interesting, too.)
The one thing missing from the podcast that my talk had was … a gazillion terrible Friend Zone memes to illustrate all my points. So here are a couple of the ones I refer to in the interview.
![DoloresCruz1982 86 points 22 hours ago (174|87) Why is a woman's butt on the cover of a book about problems faced by males in our society? permalink save report give gold reply [–]warrenfarrell [S] 2 points 20 hours ago (184|182) i assume you're referring to the profile of a woman's rear on the new ebook edition of The Myth of Male Power. first, that was my choice--i don't want to put that off on the publisher! i chose that to illustrate that the heterosexual man's attraction to the naked body of a beautiful woman takes the power out of our upper brain and transports it into our lower brain. every heterosexual male knows this. and the sooner men confront the powerlessness of being a prisoner to this instinct, we may earn less money to pay for women's drinks, dinners and diamonds, but we'll have more control over our lives, and therefor more real power. it's in women's interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men's inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/warrenbutt.png?resize=528%2C398&ssl=1)
